The Democrats sure are hypocrites, to say the least. After four years of one attempt after the other to discredit and ultimately unseat President Trump, they have the audacity to suggest Republicans are being uncivil in their insistence that election fraud had occurred. Of course, this is taking things at face value without asking why the election fraud was so obvious in the first place. Many people, including this writer, were skeptical of Trump’s presidency; however, it stands to reason that his victory over Clinton in 2016 was a complete repudiation of liberalism ̶ ̶ making it difficult to believe Joe Biden, Vice President to perhaps the most liberal president in American history, could have even stood a chance of winning. In any case, if you take this situation for what it is worth, it is hard to argue that Biden won fair and square.
The Republican Party, along with Trump himself, attempted to take their case to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, it looks like their efforts may not pack the punch they were originally hoping it would. Not only has the attempt to overturn the Georgia and Pennsylvania election results been denied by SCOTUS, it appears now that the Texas suit has also been dismissed. The claim made by The Washington Post is that Republicans were arguing that the defendant states made too many changes to the voting process in unauthorized ways, as opposed to sticking with hard voter fraud allegations. That, in and of itself, should be considered enough evidence to throw the results out. Supposedly, there just was not enough evidence to prove any substantial voter fraud allegations.
While the Democrats always try to present themselves as the civil, cooperative party, there is some circumstantial evidence which proves at the very least, they are willing to cheat to steal an election. The Democrat Party will always be known as the party of Saul Alinsky. Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on Alinsky’s community organizing and changing the government by working within the system. Alinsky had some interesting things to say in Rules for Radicals on the issue of morality and, of means and ends. First, he believed that morality kept people from acting and doing what was necessary to affect change. A higher-level morality, according to Alinsky, was a willingness to corrupt yourself and sacrifice your own salvation, or your own principles for what the left considers the greater good. He said to believe “that corrupt means would corrupt the ends was to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles.” (Alinsky, p. 24) In other words, corrupting yourself in pursuit of collectivist goals is the moral standard in left-wing politics. From this perspective, it is easy to understand their attempts to steal an election. They have no morals and are willing to cheat, lie and steal to win.
Ironically, this is admitted by left-wing academics in a place they surely believed would not be seen by the average conservative reader. The book Crisis in Civility: Political Discourse and its Discontents is a literal window into the world of left-wing hypocrisy. All throughout the book, the argument is made that the Democrats are the more civil of the two party’s while at the same time, vagrantly breaking their own self-defined rules of the word. On page 170, John Gastil, a Political Science professor at The University of Pennsylvania, writes that winning every election from this day forward may require the use of uncivil actions such as shutting out and shutting down political opponents. He says, “civility can wait for a better day, when democracy’s institutions have been secured and normal political life can resume.” (Gastil, p. 170) This proves nothing as far as actual voter fraud is concerned, but it does show the general attitude of the left aligns with the Alinsky morality mentioned above. They are willing to commit voter fraud because they are convinced their worldview is superior, and if corrupting themselves will bring about change, then so be it.
Another interesting point on the issue of civility is that the left has no problem violating what they refer to as “civility of politeness.” This of course refers to the tone in which an argument is made towards an opponent. The argument may be sound and have merit but the way it is presented is far more important. All throughout the book, Trump is referred to as a racist, sexist, homophobic pig. The 2016 election is referred to as one of the most uncivil periods in our history and never, not once did any of these left-wing dingalings mention Hillary Clinton calling Trump supporters deplorable. The point is that the left justifies incivility for their purposes because from their view, America is an evil country that needs to change. They are approaching this from a fight fire with fire mentality even though their opinions are just that, opinions.
Another concept of civility is “civility of responsiveness.” This is the concept of being open to other people’s ideas and demonstrating a willingness to cooperate with those of differing views. The left constantly accuses the right of not doing this, even though we all know who the guilty party is. You are hardly demonstrating a willingness to accept differences in opinions when you are constantly referring to your opponents as racists and, suggesting that incivility may be justified in making sure you win every election from this day forward.
Read the rest at Defense of Our Nation
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.